HIGHLIGHTS2016 COORDINATED POINT-IN-TIME COUNT OF HOMELESSNESS IN CANADIAN COMMUNITIES

ISSD-044-02-16E

HOMELESSNESS Partnering Strategy

2016 coordinated point-in-time count of homelessness in Canadian communities

This publication is available for download at

publicentre.esdc.gc.ca.

It is also available upon request in multiple formats (large print,

Braille, audio cassette, audio CD, e-text diskette, e-text CD, or DAISY),

by contacting 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). By teletypewriter (TTY),

call 1-800-926-9105.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2017

For information regarding reproduction rights:

droitdauteur.copyright@HRSDC-RHDCC.gc.ca.

PDF Cat. No.: Em12-25/1-2016E-PDF

ISSN: 978-0-660-07166-4

ESDC Cat. No.: SSD-177-01-17E

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1Acknowledgements 2

BACKGROUND 3Acommonapproach 5

CONDUCTINGTHE2016COORDINATED 7 POINT‑IN‑TIMECOUNTPreparingforthecount 7

Launchingthecount 8

WHOWASINCLUDEDIN 9 THECOORDINATEDCOUNT?Howmanypeoplewereidentifiedasexperiencing 10homelessnessduringthePiTCount?

Howmanypeopleparticipatedinthesurvey? 11

THEEXPERIENCEOFHOMELESSNESS 12Chronicandepisodichomelessness 12

Peoplenotusingthesheltersystem 14

Newtocommunity(withinthepastyear) 15

GENDERANDAGE 16Ageandreasonsforhousingloss 17

POPULATIONS 18Youthhomelessness 18

Familyhomelessness 20

Indigenousidentityandhomelessness 21

MilitaryandRCMPVeterans 23

Newcomers(recentimmigrantsandrefugees) 24

CONCLUSIONS 25Populations 25

Thenextcoordinatedcount:2018 26

1

INTRODUCTION

Thisreportprovidesafirstlookatthekeyfindingsofthe2016Coordinated

Point‑in‑Time(PiT)Count.Thesefindingsincludethebasicdemographicsofparticipants

surveyed,aswellastheirreportedexperiencesofhomelessness,theirincomesources

andtheirreasonsforlosingtheirhousing.

Theresultshighlightedinthisreportarebasedonthesurveysconductedacross

the32participatingcommunities.Thesesurveysweredoneinlargeandsmallurban

communities,aswellasinrelativelyruralandremotecommunities.

InJune2016,theGovernmentofCanadaannouncedthatasecondcountwouldtake

placeduringMarchandApril2018.Informationfromthissecondcount,whencompared

with2016countfindings,willhelpcommunitiesunderstandchangesinlocalhomeless

populationsovertime.

Asmorecommunitiesparticipateinfuturecoordinatedcounts,findingsfrom

theCoordinatedPiTCountcanhelptodevelopatrulynationalunderstanding

ofhomelessnessinCanada.

2

Acknowledgements

ThisreportwaspreparedbyDr.PatrickHunter,PolicyAnalystforEmploymentand

SocialDevelopmentCanada,andreflectstheworkbythePiTCountImplementation

team,theNationalPiTCountWorkingGroupandallofthefollowing32communities

thatparticipatedinthe2016Count:

WEST ONTARIO EAST

British Columbia

n Victoria

nNanaimo

nNelson

n Kelowna

n PrinceGeorge

n Comox

Yukon

nWhitehorse

Saskatchewan

n Regina

n PrinceAlbert

Manitoba

n Brandon

n Thompson

Ontario

n Brantford

nGuelphandWellington

County

n Halton

n Hamilton

n Kingston

n London

nNipissing/NorthBay

n Peterborough

n Sault‑Ste‑Marie

n St.Catharines/Niagara/

Thorold

n ThunderBay

nWindsor

n YorkRegion

New Brunswick

n Fredericton

nMoncton

n SaintJohn

n Bathurst

Nova Scotia

n Halifax

n CapeBreton

Prince Edward Island

n Charlottetown

n Summerside

3

BACKGROUND

BetweenJanuary1andApril30,2016,theGovernmentofCanadaprovidedsupport

to32communitiesacrossCanadathatparticipatedinacoordinatedcountofhomeless

populationsintheirrespectiveareas.ThesecommunitiesusedthePoint‑in‑Time(PiT)

Countmethod(describedbelow)inordertobetterunderstandthenatureandscope

oflocalhomelessness.

SomecommunitiesinCanadahavebeenconductingtheirownhomelesscountsfor

morethanadecade.However,theyhavebeendoingsoatdifferenttimesofyearand

usingdifferentapproaches.The2016CoordinatedPiTCountmarkedthefirsttime

thatcommunitiesacrossprovincesandterritoriesinCanadahaveusedacommon

approachwhendoingahomelesscount.Thisapproachwasdevelopedbyanational

workinggroupthatincludedexpertsfromcommunitiesthathaveexperience

conductingcounts.

4

WHATISA“POINT‑IN‑TIME”COUNT?

APoint‑in‑Time(PiT)countisaone‑daysnapshotofhomelessnessinshelters

andonthestreetswithinacommunity.APiTcountestimateshowmanypeople

areexperiencinghomelessnessinemergencyshelters,intransitionalhousingand

inunshelteredlocationsonthedayofthecount.Itcanalsoincludepeoplewhoare

inhealthorcorrectionsfacilities—suchashospitals,detoxcentres,detentioncentres

orjails—whodonothaveaplacetogowhentheyarereleased.

ThePiTcountisnotjustacount;itincludessurveyquestionsaimedatgetting

informationtobetterunderstandthepopulationofpeopleexperiencinghomelessness.

Thisinformationcanhelpdeterminewhatinterventionsareneededtohelpmove

peopleexperiencinghomelessnessintoastablehousingsituation.

PiTcountscanberepeatedoversubsequentyearstoevaluateprogressinreducing

homelessness,trackdemographicchangesandmonitorevolvingserviceneedsinorder

tobetterallocateresources.

LimitationsofaPiTcount

APiTcountcannotreachallofthepeoplewhoarehomelessinthecommunityover

aperiodoftime.Peopleoftencycleinandoutofhomelessness,sosomepeoplewill

notbehomelessduringthecountbutmayhavebeenthedaybefore,ormaybecome

homelessthedayafter.Moreover,itcannotreachallpeopleregardedas“hidden”

homeless—thosewhoaretemporarilystayingwithfriendsorfamilybecause

theyhavenoplaceoftheirown.

Forthesereasons,PiTcountsshouldbecomplementedbyotherinformationgathering

approaches,suchasperiodprevalencecounts,whichcollectadministrativedataover

thecourseofayear,orthecreationofaby‑namelist,areal‑timeregistryofpeople

whoenterandexithomelessnesswithinacommunity.

5

A common approach

Theapproachusedforthe2016CoordinatedPiTCountwasdesignedsothateach

communitywouldhaveacommonbaselinewithwhichtoassesslocalhomelessness.

Itincludedadefinitionofthecorepopulationsexperiencinghomelessness,corescreening

andsurveyquestionsandthebasicmethodologyfortheenumeration.Itallowedthe

resultsofindividualcommunitiestobecombinedintoabroaderpicture,helpingto

improvetheunderstandingofhomelessnessacrossthecountryandthesupports

neededtoaddressit.

Communitiescanpotentiallybuildonthiscoreapproachtobetteraddresslocal

priorities.Thiscanmeanincludingotherpopulationsconsideredtobehomeless

(e.g.,peoplewithinthecorrectionssystemwithoutapermanentaddress).Itcanalso

meanaddingsurveyquestionsthataddresslocalinformationneeds.Forexample,

severalcommunitiesconductedajointPiTCountandRegistryWeek,whichcreates

aby‑namelistofpeopleexperiencinghomelessnessinthecommunityandhousing

interventions.

Corepopulations:Whowassurveyed?

PiTcountcore populationsincludedpeoplewhoweresleepinginunsheltered

locations(e.g.,alleys,parksandotherpublicspaces,abandonedbuildings,cars,etc.),

emergencyshelters,coldweathershelters,transitionalfacilitiesandshelters

forwomenfleeingviolence.

Somecommunitieswerealsoabletosurveypeoplewhowereinhealthor

correctionsfacilities(e.g.,hospitals,detoxfacilities,jails,prisonsordetentioncentres).

Manycommunitiesalsochosetoconductsurveyswithpeopleexperiencing“hidden

homelessness”(stayingtemporarilywithsomeoneelsebecausetheyarewithout

aplaceoftheirown).Inmostcases,theywereencounteredinoutdoorlocations,

inservicelocationsorat“magnetevents”intendedtoengagethispopulation.

6

Corequestions:Whatwasasked?

Thecore questionssolicitedthefollowinginformation:

nwhetherrespondentshadapermanentresidence;

nwheretheywerestayingonthenightofthecount;

nwhetherrespondentswereexperiencingfamilyhomelessness;

nwhattheiragewas;

nwhatgendertheyidentifiedwith;

nwhethertheyidentifiedasIndigenousorAboriginal;

nwhethertheyhadservedintheCanadianArmedForcesorRoyalCanadian

MountedPolice;

nwhethertheycametoCanadaasanimmigrantorrefugeeinthepastfiveyears;

nwhethertheymovedtothecommunityinthepastyear;

nwhatlengthoftimetheyspenthomelessoverthepastyear;

nwhatnumberofdistincthomelessepisodestheyhadoverthepastyear;

nwhethertheyusedashelteroverthepastyear;

nwhatthereasonswerefortheirmostrecenthousingloss;and

nwhatsourcesofincometheyhad.

Thefulllistofcorequestionsandresponseoptionsusedin2016canbefoundinthe

Guide to Point-in-Time Counts in Canada of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy.

7

CONDUCTINGTHE2016COORDINATEDPOINT‑IN‑TIMECOUNTPreparing for the count

ThiswasthefirstPiTcountfor28ofthe32communities.Inthemonthsleadingupto

thecount,implementationguidelinesandtoolsweredevelopedforthecommunities

withthesupportoftheGovernmentofCanada’sHomelessnessPartneringStrategy(HPS)

Program.Theseincluded:

n TheGuide to Point-in-Time Counts in Canada of the Homelessness Partnering

Strategy–TheguideprovidedthecoremethodologyforthePiTcount,thecommon

corequestions,andguidelinesandadviceforplanningacount.Itwasdevelopedto

supportthecoordinatedcount,butcanserveasageneralguidetoanycommunity

wishingtoconductaPiTcount.

n ThePoint-in-Time Count Toolkit–ThiswasdevelopedbytheCanadianObservatory

onHomelessnesswiththesupportoftheHPS.Itprovidedpracticaltipsandtools

thatcouldbedownloadedandadaptedforusebyparticipatingcommunities.

n PiTCountCoordinatorTrainingSessions–Participatingcommunitieswereprovided

withatrainingworkshopforplanningandconductingacount.Theworkshopincluded

simulationsandquestionandanswersessions.Workshopattendeesbenefittedfrom

theexperienceofexpertsfromcommunitiesthathadpreviousexperienceconducting

PiTcounts.

n ThePiTCountsectionontheCommunity Workspace on Homelessness–Inorder

tofostercollaborationandknowledgesharingamongcommunities,theHPSProgram

supportedthedevelopmentofaPiT Count sectionontheWorkspace—anonline

collaborativespacewherepractitionersandexpertscanshareinformation

andresources.

8

Launching the count

ThecommunityPiTcountstookplaceacrossCanadabetweenJanuary16

andApril25,2016,withmostcountsoccurringbetweentheendofFebruary

andmid‑April.

Ontario13 Communities

32 Participating Communities 2,000+ Volunteers 250+ Shelters and transitional facilities 350+ Community partners

East8 Communities

West1 1 Communities

9

WHOWASINCLUDEDINTHECOORDINATEDCOUNT?

Forthe2016PiTCount,homelessnesswasdefinedbywherepeoplewerespendingthe

night.Thecore populations includedbyallparticipatingcommunitiescomprisedpeople

stayinginunshelteredlocations,insheltersandintransitionalfacilities.Communities

couldalsoopttoincludepeopleexperiencinghomelessnessinhealthandcorrections

systems,andpeopleexperiencing“hidden”homelessness.

Sleeping rough on the street, in parks, camps, vehicles or abandoned buildings

Staying in emergency shelters, shelters for women escaping violence, or provided with hotel vouchers in lieu of a shelter bed

Staying in transitional facilities that provide longer stays than shelters, but are not permanent housing interventions

Corrections: prisons, jails, detention centres with no fixed address

Health: hospitals, detox, other treatment facilities with no fixed address

Staying with someone else because the person is without a place of his or her own

Unsheltered (Core)

Sheltered (Core)

Transitional (Core)

Systems (Optional)

Populations included in the point-in-time count

Hidden (Optional)

10

How many people were identified as experiencing homelessness during the PiT Count?

Acrossthe32participatingcommunities,atotalof5,954peoplewereidentified

asexperiencinghomelessnessinthecorepopulations(i.e.inemergencyshelters,

intransitionalfacilitiesandonthestreets).Betweencommunities,countsvaried

from12to1,201people.Intotal,1,417people(24%)wereenumeratedinunsheltered

locations,2,832people(47%)wereenumeratedinsheltersand1,705people(29%)

wereenumeratedintransitionalfacilities.

Anadditional245peoplewereenumeratedwhowereexperiencinghomelessness

anddidnotknowwheretheywouldspendthenight.Manycommunitiesalsoincluded

otherpopulationsintheircount.In17communities,478peopleenumeratedhad

nofixedaddressandweresleepinginhealthandcorrectionsfacilities.

Sheltered

47%

Transitional

29%

Unsheltered

24%

Enumeration by population

11

How many people participated in the survey?

Acrossthe32communities,4,579peoplewhowereexperiencinghomelessnesswere

surveyed.Thisnumberincludes3,543peopleinthecore populations.Italsoincludes

1,036peoplewhodidnotknowwheretheyweregoingtostaythatnight,peoplewho

weresurveyedinhealthandcorrectionalsystems,andpeoplewhowereexperiencing

hiddenhomelessness.

HIDDENHOMELESSNESS

Noteveryonewhoishomelessisstayinginashelteroronthestreet.Manyare

livinginprecarioussituationswithfriendsorrelativesonatemporarybasis.Because

theytendnottointeractwiththehomelessnessservingsystems,thisisreferred

toas“hidden”homelessness.

Becausethoseexperiencinghiddenhomelessnessstayinhomes,itisnotpossible

foraPiTcounttodeterminehowmanypeopleareexperiencinghiddenhomelessness

duringthecount.Acertainnumbermaybeencounteredandsurveyedonthenight

ofthecount,butthislikelyonlyrepresentsafractionofthetotalhiddenhomeless

population.IncommunitiesthatincludedhiddenhomelessnessintheirPiTcount,

itaccountedforbetween1.1%and49.8%ofthesurveyedpopulation,withhigher

numbersincommunitiesthatconducteda“magnetevent”toreachouttopeople

experiencinghomelessness.Insomecases,magneteventswereassimpleas

acommunitymeal.Inothers,theyincludedarangeofservices,fromhaircuts

andclothingbankstorésuméworkshops.

APiTcountcanhelptoshedsomelightonwhoisexperiencinghiddenhomelessness

andwhatservicesareneededtohelpthem.

12

THEEXPERIENCEOFHOMELESSNESSChronic and episodic homelessness

Thesurveyusedforthe2016PiTCountaimedtoidentifythenumberofpeople

experiencingchronic or episodichomelessness.Respondentswereaskedtoestimate

howmuchtimetheywerehomelessoverthecourseofthepastyearandhowmany

differenttimestheyexperiencedhomelessness.Forthepurposesofthecount,chronic

homelessnesswasdefinedasanexperienceofsixormoremonthsofhomelessness,

andepisodic homelessness wasdefinedasthreeormoredistinctepisodesaddingup

tolessthansixmonths.Temporary homelessnesswasdefinedaslessthansixmonths

andfewerthanthreeepisodesofhomelessnessoverthepastyear.

Accordingtothesedefinitions,56.7%ofrespondentswereexperiencingchronic

homelessnessand9.0%wereexperiencingepisodic homelessness.Theremaining

respondentshadeitherrecentlybecomehomelessorhadexperiencedoneor

twoshorterepisodesofhomelessness.Chronichomelessnessvariedbycommunity,

rangingfrom25.0%to91.7%,withhigherlevelsinwesternandnortherncommunities

comparedtocommunitiesinOntarioandtheEast.

13

Chronic and episodic homelessness by region

East

Chronic68%

Temporary40%

Episodic14%

Episodic7%

Temporary25%

Chronic46%

West

Chronic50%

Episodic10%

Temporary40%

Ontario

14

Unsheltered

Perce

ntag

e of r

espo

nden

ts wh

o did

not

use

a she

lter i

n th

e pas

t yea

r

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Transitional Systems Hidden

38%

52%

60%

52%

People not using the shelter system

APiTcountcanalsoindicatewhatproportionofthehomelesspopulationdoesnot

usethesheltersystem.Morethanonequarterofrespondentsindicatedthattheyhad

not usedashelterinthepastyear.Manywereeitherinunshelteredlocations,in

transitionalhousing,inhealthorcorrectionssystemsorwereexperiencinghidden

homelessnessonthenightofthecount.

Non-shelter users by location

Respondentswhohadexperiencedlongerperiodsofhomelessnessweremore

likelytohaveusedashelter.Itisparticularlyimportanttoknowthenumberofpeople

experiencinglongperiodsofhomelessnesswhoarestayingonthestreetorwhoare

experiencinghiddenhomelessness.Theseindividualsmayormaynotinteractwith

homelessnesssupportsystemsandtheytendtobehardertoreach.Amongrespondents

whohadbeenhomelessforsixormoremonths,36%ofthosestayinginunsheltered

locationsand47%ofthosewhowereexperiencinghiddenhomelessnesshadnot

usedashelter.

15

0–2 Mos

Perce

ntag

e of r

espo

nden

ts wh

o did

not

use

a she

lter i

n th

e pas

t yea

r

Length of homelessness over the past year

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%3–5 Mos 6+ Mos

Non-shelter users by duration of homelessnessfor unsheltered and hidden populations

68%

43% 47%

36%35%

46%

UnshelteredHidden

New to community (within the past year)

Approximately30%ofsurveyrespondentshadarrivedinthecommunitywithinthe

pastyear.Thosewhohadarrivedrecentlytendedtobeyoungerandwerelesslikelyto

beexperiencingchronichomelessness.Therewerenodifferencesbetweenthegroups

intermsofgender,Aboriginalidentityorveteranstatus.

16

GENDERANDAGE

Inthe2016PiTCountsurvey,respondentswereaskedwhatgendertheyidentified

with.Morethan60%ofthesurveyrespondentsweremale,withwomenaccounting

fornearly40%.Lessthan1%ofrespondentsprovidedanothergenderidentity.1

ConsistentwithfindingspublishedintheHighlights of the National Shelter

Study 2005–2014,mostrespondentswereadults(aged24–49),withfewer

olderadults(50–64)andunaccompaniedyouths(aged14–24).Veryfewwere

seniors(aged65+).Respondentsalsoreporteddependentchildren(aged0–16)

aswellasolderdependants(aged17+).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Nu

mb

er

of

ind

ivid

uals

Age

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PiT count enumeration by age and gender

Male

Female

Malesandfemaleswereequallyrepresentedamongchildrenandyouths,butmales

weremoreprevalentamonghomelessadults,olderadultsandyoungerseniors,with

thedifferencesdisappearingforindividualsagedintheirearly70s.Thiswaslargely

duetoadownwardtrendinfemalehomelessnessoveradulthood.Bycontrast,male

homelessnesswassteadyuntilthe50s,whereitbegantoshowasharpdecline.

1 Lessthan1%ofsurveyrespondentsself‑identifiedastransgenderorgaveanotherresponse.Becausethesurveyquestionwas,“Whatgenderdoyouidentifywith?”peoplewhoaretransgenderwhoidentifyasmaleorfemalemayhaveresponded“male”or“female”.Therefore,thisnumbercannotbeinterpretedasthetotalnumberofpeoplewhoaretransgenderinthepopulation.

17

Malesmadeupthemajorityofrespondentsinmostsurveylocations,including

unshelteredlocations(73.7%)andemergencyshelters(65.5%),whereasfemales

representedmorethanhalf(53.4%)ofrespondentsintransitionalhousing.Thismay

bedueinparttotheavailabilityofsheltervs.transitionalhousingunitsformen

andwomen.

Age and reasons for housing loss

Respondentswereaskedwhathappenedthatledtotheirmostrecenthousingloss.

Thefivemostcommonlycitedresponsesbyeachagegrouparelistedinthetablebelow.

34% Conflictwith a parentor guardian

18% Addictionor substance use

12% Eviction: non-financial reasons

12% Unsafe housing

11% Eviction: unable topay rent

24% Addictionsor substanceuse

16% Eviction:unable topay rent

14% Eviction: non-financial reasons

13% Abuse bya partner or spouse

13% Conflict with a partneror spouse

20% Eviction: unable to pay rent

20% Eviction: non-financial reasons

17% Addictions or substance use

16% Job loss

14% Unsafe housing

24% Eviction: unable to pay rent

15% Illness or medicalcondition

14% Eviction: non-financial reasons

11% Job loss

10% Addictions or substance use

Youth(14–24)

Adult(25–49)

Older Adult

(50–64)Senior(65+)

Five most common reasons indicated for housing lossby age group

18

Somedifferencesacrossagegroupsarenoticeable:

nAddictionsandsubstanceusewascitedacrossagegroups,althoughitwas

lesscommonlyindicatedbyseniors.

n Financialfactorsbecomemoreprevalentwithage,includinganinabilitytopay

rentandjobloss.Thismaycomefromolderadultsthatlosetheiremployment

andhavedifficultyfindinganewjob.

n Evictionfornon‑financialreasonsisprevalentacrossagegroups.

n Interpersonalfactorswerenotedbyyouthandadultsintheformofabuse,

conflictorboth.

POPULATIONSYouth homelessness

Asharpincreaseinhomelessnesswasseenbetweentheagesof16and20forboth

genders.Maleandfemaleyouthwererepresentedacrosssurveylocations,although

menweresomewhatmoreprevalentinsheltersandhealthandcorrectionssystems.

Amongadults,womenstillmadeuphalfofthoseintransitionalfacilitiesbutwerethe

minorityinmostothersurveylocations.Thisisparticularlyevidentinunshelteredlocations,

wheretheproportionofwomenfallsfrom52%amongyouthto23%amongadults.

Amongyouth,morethanathird(34%)saidthatconflictwithparentsorguardians

contributedtotheirmostrecenthousingloss.Abusebyaparentorguardian

wasmentionedby7%ofsurveyrespondents.

19

Unsheltered

Yo

uth

(14

–2

4)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%TransitionalSheltered Systems Hidden

52% 44% 55% 41%

48%

56%

45%

59%

47%

53%

Unsheltered

Ad

ult

s (2

5+

)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%TransitionalSheltered Systems Hidden

23% 32% 53% 31%

77%

68%

47%

69%

37%

63%

Gender by location and age group

Male Female

20

Family homelessness

Inordertoestimatetheextentoffamilyhomelessness,respondentswereaskedwhether

theywerestayingwithanyoneelse.Intotal,14%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheyhad

oneormorefamilymemberswiththem.Oftheserespondents,approximately86%were

singleparents(mostlyfemale),6%werecoupleswithdependants,and9%werecouples

withoutdependants.

Couplestendedtohavemoredependants,withanaverageof2.2dependantsper

couplecomparedto1.9forsingleparents.Dependantsweremostlychildrenunderthe

ageof17(91.5%),butincludedanumberofdependentyouthsandadultsaswell(8.5%).

Comparedtorespondentswithoutdependants,fewfamilieswithdependantswere

unsheltered.Themajorityofthesefamiliesweresurveyedinsheltersortransitional

housing(81%).

Overnight locations for respondentswith and without dependants

With dependants

Transitional18%

Systems3%

Sheltered50%

Unsheltered9%

Hidden10%

Systems<1%

Sheltered39%

Unsheltered14%

Hidden15%

Transitional42%

Without dependants

21

Indigenous identity and homelessness

NearlytwoinfiverespondentsidentifiedasAboriginalorIndigenous(37%).This

proportionvariedbycommunityfrom7%to97%.Bycomparison,only4%ofpeople

inthegeneralCanadianpopulationidentifyasAboriginal.Thismeansthatpeople

whoidentifyasAboriginalareninetimesmorelikelytoexperiencehomelessness

thanthosewhodonot.

Percentage of respondents who identify as Indigenous

Indigenous37%

Non-Indigenous63%

FirstNations24%

Métis5%

Inuit<1%

Non-Statusor Ancestry

8%

Demographically,Indigenousrespondentswereyoungerandweremorelikelytobe

femalethannon‑Indigenousrespondents.Indigenousrespondentswerealsoless

likelytobeinsheltersortransitionalfacilities,andmorelikelytoreporthidden

homelessness,particularlyamongthosewhoidentifiedasFirstNations.

22

Indigenousrespondentsweremorelikelytoreportlongerdurationsofhomelessness

(sixormoremonths)andmoredistinctepisodesofhomelessness(threeormore)

overthepastyear.ThiswasparticularlytrueofrespondentswhoidentifiedasFirst

NationsandInuit.

Indigenous

Number of months ofhomelessness in the past year

Number of episodes ofhomelessness in the past year

Non-Indigenous

62%

17%

21%

52%

19%

30%

Indigenous Non-Indigenous

39%

14%

47%

25%

17%

58%

Duration and number of episodes of homelessnessby Indigenous identity

Six or moreThree to fiveZero to two

Three or moreTwoOne

23

Military and RCMP Veterans

Nearly5%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheyhadservedintheCanadianArmed

Forces,whilelessthan1%indicatedthattheyhadservedintheRoyalCanadianMounted

Police(RCMP).Bycontrast,theproportionofveteransintheCanadianadultpopulation

isapproximately2.4%.Thisresultsuggeststhatveteransareapproximatelytwiceas

likelytoexperiencehomelessnessasnon‑veterans.Theproportionofrespondents

thatidentifiedasaveteranvariedbycommunityandrangedfrom0%to13%.

Veteransweremorelikelytobemaleandolderthannon‑veterans,morelikelyto

useashelterinthepast12months,andmorelikelytoreportexperiencingchronic

homelessnessacrossagecategories.

Age by veteran status

Non-veterans

Adults(25–49)

46%Adults

(25–49)55%

Older Adults(50–64)

23%

Seniors(65+)3%

Youth(14–24)

19%

Youth(14–24)

4%

Seniors(65+)9%

Older Adults(50–64)

41%

Veterans

Maleveteransweremorelikelythanmalenon‑veteranstobeinunshelteredlocations

andinemergencyshelters,andlesslikelytobeintransitionalfacilitiesorbeexperiencing

hiddenhomelessness.Fewfemaleveteranswereidentified.Theyweremorelikelythan

femalenon‑veteranstobeinsheltersandlesslikelytobeintransitionalfacilities.

24

Newcomers (recent immigrants and refugees)

Fourpercentofrespondentsindicatedtheywerearefugeeorimmigrantwhocame

toCanadawithinthepastfiveyears(2011–2016).Thisrangedfrom0%to16%among

theparticipatingcommunities.Theproportionissimilartothatofnewcomers

inthegeneralpopulation.

Newcomersweremorethantwiceaslikelyasnon‑newcomerstobeintransitional

facilities(45%vs.19%).Nobroaddemographicdifferenceswereseenbetweengroups,

althoughnewcomersweremorelikelytoreportbeinghomelesswithadependant

(40%vs.13%).

Family composition by newcomer status

Non-newcomer

One-parent33%

Single56%

Two-parent1%

Single87%

Two-parent7%

Couple3%

Couple2%

One-parent11%

Newcomer

Whenaskedaboutfactorsthatcontributedtotheirmostrecenthousingloss,nearly

oneinthreenewcomers(31%)citedfactorsdirectlytiedtotheirreasonformigration

(e.g.,“war”or“forcedtoleavecountry”).Femalenewcomersweretwiceaslikelyas

non‑newcomerfemalestocitedomesticabuseasacontributingfactor(40%vs.22%).

25

CONCLUSIONS

ThefindingsfromthesecommunityPiTcountsbuildonwhatisknownabout

homelessnessinCanada.WhiledataisavailableonshelterusersinCanada,PiT

countscanbeusedtoengagethosewhodonotaccessservicesforthoseexperiencing

homelessness,includingshelters.Itisnotablethatwhilehalfofthoseenumeratedin

thisstudywereinashelter,halfofthosewhowereexperiencinghiddenhomelessness

andathirdofthoseinunshelteredlocationsindicatedthattheyhadnotusedashelter

inthepastyear.

Populations

Overhalfofrespondentsindicatedtheywerehomelessforsixormoremonthsinthe

pastyear.TheHighlights of the National Shelter Study 2005–2014showedthatthe

majorityofthosewhobecomehomelesshaveonlyabriefexperienceofhomelessness.

Relativelyfewpeopleexperiencehomelessnessacrossyears.Andyet,peopleexperiencing

chronichomelessnessappeartomakeupthemajorityofthosewhoarehomeless

onagivenday.

Inrecentyears,manycommunitieshaveadoptedaHousing Firstapproachtosupport

peopleexperiencingchronichomelessness.Generallyspeaking,underthisapproach,

individualswithhighneedsaremovedasrapidlyaspossiblefromthestreetorshelters

directlyintopermanenthousingwithsupportsthataretailoredtotheirneeds.Asthis

approachisadoptedbymoreCanadiancommunities,morepeoplemaybereceiving

thehelptheyneedtobecomestablyhoused.

Thefindingsalsopointtopopulationsthatareinparticularneedofsupport.Indigenous

peopleareover‑representedinthehomelesspopulationacrossthecountry.Thehigh

incidenceofchronichomelessnessamongthispopulationsuggestsaneedforaHousing

Firstapproachthatisculturallysensitive,aswaspilotedinWinnipegaspartofthe

At Home/Chez Soiproject.Similarly,thehigherincidenceofchronichomelessness

amongveteransandfamilyhomelessnessamongnewcomersindicatesaneed

fortargetedsupports.

26

Otherfindingsinthisreporthighlightaneedfortargetedsupportsorfurther

investigation:

nNearlyonequarterofallwomenciteddomesticabuseasafactorleadingtotheir

mostrecenthousingloss.Thenumberwashigherfornewcomerwomen.Domestic

violencesheltersplayanimportantroleinaddressingtheneedsofthispopulation.

nOlderadultsandseniorsweremorelikelytocitefinancialfactorsfortheirmost

recenthousingloss,includinganinabilitytopayrentandthelossofemployment.

Financialinterventionsmaybeeffectiveatpreventinghousinglossbypeople

intheseagegroups.

n Evictionfornon‑financialreasonsiscommonacrossagegroups.Withoutfurther

information,itisnotclearwhatthesereasonsare.

The next coordinated count: 2018

Thefindingsofthe2016Countprovideasnapshotofhomelessnessin

winter‑spring2016.ThetruevalueofPiTcountscomeswiththerepetitionof

thesecountsovertime.Thenextcountwillprovideapointofcomparisonagainst

thisfirstcounttoidentifychangesindistinctpopulations.Inparticular,itmaybe

possibletoseechangesinchronicandepisodichomelessnessincommunities

withastronghousingfirstapproach.

Withmorecommunitieslikelytobeparticipatingin2018,itwillbepossibletosee

abroadernationalpictureofhomelessnessinCanada.Certainpopulations,suchas

newcomers,arelikelytobemorerepresentedincertaincommunities.Withdatafrom

thesecommunities,itmaybepossibletobetterunderstandwhatleadstohomelessness

andwhatsupportscanbeeffectiveinreducingit.